Introducing competency-based postgraduate medical training: gains and losses

  • Kjaer N
  • Kodal T
  • Shaughnessy A
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to explore the gains and losses, from the trainees' perspective, that occur when replacing process-oriented basic medical training with competency-based training and to explore whether compe-tency-based training can justify a reduction in clinical training. Methods: We performed a national cross-sectional survey of attitudes of Danish doctors who had completed either the old process-oriented 18-month training period (n=671) or the new competency-based 12-month training period (n=547). A total of 1218 doctors were included and 792 of them completed an online survey, yielding a response rate of 65%. Results: Trainees of the old process-oriented programme (53%) felt more ready to continue medical training than the doctors (84%) who followed the new and shorter competen-cy-based programme. The differences was statistically significant (t(790) = 11.16; p < 0.0001). The latter group did not feel the competency-based programme improved the learning environment. Some trainees reported that learning objectives seem to optimize their learning within defined learning frames. They valued a curriculum that should not only contain learning objectives but that should also ensure relevant learning opportunities, providing sufficient time for learning and useful feedback. Conclusions: It is unlikely that a competency-based curric-ulum can justify a significant reduction in the time spent on clinical training. The learning approaches and the amount of time that we dedicate to training are important. Imple-mentation of a new curriculum requires a substantial effort.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kjaer, N. K., Kodal, T., Shaughnessy, A. F., & Qvesel, D. (2011). Introducing competency-based postgraduate medical training: gains and losses. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 110–115. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4e78.427f

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free